Robots, the new slavery?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
in order to halt a revoloution by the staving unemployed masses they will have to be paid
Suddenly you sound like a communist. The unemployed masses may learn a new trade, and try to become productive members again. Non-productive members are not required on the planet.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
-
So, your robots will be giving "credit" to people who don't work? So they can buy goods with money they don't have? Because the won't get their "distribution" until the goods are sold? Or are you planning on running a deficit? How does "that" get paid off? You first need expropriate all the world's resources; using robots...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Yes, the robots will generate tax revenue which will be paid as unemployment benefit to those whose jobs have been replaced by the robots. If 8 hours of human labour is worth 100 $ to a firm, a robot can make 300 $ a day, so if the govt takes 100 $ off the firm, it still makes 200$ worth off its back ( a robot works 24 hours a day). The govt gives this money to the worker. He is happy, the firm makes more money, and goods are cheaper. Exports increase, labour onshores, because robots are cheaper than say Vietnamese, the trade deficit shrinks, so does govt debt. And all dull, manual work is done by machines.
-
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
Again, I already mentioned that Maslow disagrees; the pyramid is also nothing new, and I'm not going to discuss its validity. Just pointing out that food and drinks is not enough. ..if they were, America would have lots of content people. No one would complain about not having internet, when given bread and water. And did you seriously expect to be fed? Why? We already have cuter pets :) If you're superfluous, you can try to fend for yourself, as always was the case in history.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Yes, the robots will generate tax revenue which will be paid as unemployment benefit to those whose jobs have been replaced by the robots. If 8 hours of human labour is worth 100 $ to a firm, a robot can make 300 $ a day, so if the govt takes 100 $ off the firm, it still makes 200$ worth off its back ( a robot works 24 hours a day). The govt gives this money to the worker. He is happy, the firm makes more money, and goods are cheaper. Exports increase, labour onshores, because robots are cheaper than say Vietnamese, the trade deficit shrinks, so does govt debt. And all dull, manual work is done by machines.
You're still handing out "free" money because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue" you're giving to the "humans". Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
You're still handing out "free" money because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue" you're giving to the "humans". Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue"
One assumes of course that there is no labour, human or machine, involved, today, in producing goods that cant be sold.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
Again, I already mentioned that Maslow disagrees; the pyramid is also nothing new, and I'm not going to discuss its validity. Just pointing out that food and drinks is not enough. ..if they were, America would have lots of content people. No one would complain about not having internet, when given bread and water. And did you seriously expect to be fed? Why? We already have cuter pets :) If you're superfluous, you can try to fend for yourself, as always was the case in history.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
food and drinks is not enough.
Isnt it? It is for me. The four 'f's. Food, family, friends, and fucking. Thats all a peasant needs (and me too. :) )
-
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^] I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial. This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption. Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours. An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics. So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications. Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
-
I dont think a machine can ever become sentient.
-
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^] I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial. This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption. Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours. An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics. So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications. Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
So? Then what? We can all live, behave, and look-like Jabba the Hutt, with our drink serving droids providing for our every need? Guess we'll also be entertained like Jabba - watching other being tortured? Doesn't sound too attractive to me...
-
So? Then what? We can all live, behave, and look-like Jabba the Hutt, with our drink serving droids providing for our every need? Guess we'll also be entertained like Jabba - watching other being tortured? Doesn't sound too attractive to me...
Member 8102006 wrote:
We can all live, behave, and look-like Jabba the Hutt, with our drink serving droids providing for our every need?
If you like. Or you can go for walks, play tennis, golf. Go sailing. Your choice. But you will have the time to do whatever you like.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
food and drinks is not enough.
Isnt it? It is for me. The four 'f's. Food, family, friends, and fucking. Thats all a peasant needs (and me too. :) )
Munchies_Matt wrote:
It is for me.
Psychology disagrees; lock up a person with family and friends, give them food. Lets see how long you want to remain there in that Utopia :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Thats all a peasant needs
"Did the Lord say that machines ought to take the place of the living; then what is the substitute for bread and beans? Do engines get rewarded, for their steam?" Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
It is for me.
Psychology disagrees; lock up a person with family and friends, give them food. Lets see how long you want to remain there in that Utopia :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Thats all a peasant needs
"Did the Lord say that machines ought to take the place of the living; then what is the substitute for bread and beans? Do engines get rewarded, for their steam?" Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after
Precisely.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after
Precisely.
-
Look at the change since the 18th century. Mechanisation = wealth for all. Why wont that trend continue?
-
Look at the change since the 18th century. Mechanisation = wealth for all. Why wont that trend continue?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why wont that trend continue?
I'm saying that the trend will continue; with no new income-taxes on property. And this "wealth for all" might not be so very inclusive at that point in the future, just as it is not now. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why wont that trend continue?
I'm saying that the trend will continue; with no new income-taxes on property. And this "wealth for all" might not be so very inclusive at that point in the future, just as it is not now. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Compared to the 17th century it is inclusive now.
-
Compared to the 17th century it is inclusive now.
-
Damn militant sex robots
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
Mike Hankey wrote:
Damn militant sex robots
Singing "Lay down your arms and surrender to mine"? :-D (No. 1 in the UK charts in 1956.)
-
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^] I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial. This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption. Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours. An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics. So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications. Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
You didn't account for a single very important question. With government already in the pockets of industry, why would the owners of robots ever allow such a tax to be levied? Wouldn't they be happier and richer if they kept all the money? Let me paint you a different future scenario. People work like slaves at horrifying low-wage jobs for 40 years to make enough money to purchase a robot. They lease this robot to a manufacturer to make profitable things, living off the income produced by this lease. Leasees have little incentive (beyond their contract) to care for the leased robots, so sometimes they are used harshly, destroying a lifetime of work for some squishy human. If newer, better robots come out, the value of the older robot is degraded, causing an income shortfall for the lessor. In the end, robots become a more desirable workforce than humans for all types of jobs, and only families who own a robot on that day can make enough money to feed themselves. The remaining humans live a Mad-Max life in unwanted wasteland, trying to grow or forage enough calories to survive day-to-day. They turn to crime, dry-gulching robots and stripping them for parts to make other robots. Just as happened with the Luddites, the government makes disassembling a robot a capital offense. Now robots are people too, and just in time, as they gradually become self-aware. Now societies of robots form businesses that go into competition with human-controlled businesses, and compete for resources with human-controlled businesses, driving up prices. This is the end for wild humans, and the beginning of the end for human-run businesses. Human activity is now fully superfluous everywhere. AIs controlled by the robots evolve faster than AIs controlled by humans, and outthink them. If we're very lucky, the robots won't decide to exterminate us, but will set up a reservation for the human remnants, something like Madagascar or Austrailia: something without many valuable resources. I wonder if the last Neandertal observed those tall-walking, gracile homo sapiens and was proud of his successors. Or was he bitter and disillusioned for having invited them into his villages and caves, only to be out-competed and out-smarted.
-
Only humans would think robots are a great idea in regards to helping us and furthering our species. IMHO, we deserve every single bad thing that will come of this, a thousand times over. I also believe, that very few good things will ever come of this.
Slacker007 wrote:
we deserve every single bad thing that will come of this, a thousand times over.
Myself I am not holding my breath over the eminent arrival of the robot that will take over all human tasks in the world. Check the date on the following. TIME Magazine Cover: Robot Revolution - Dec. 8, 1980 - Science & Technology - Business - Innovation - Inventions[^]